Telezoom for landscape: 70-300 F4-5.6L IS, 70-200 F/4L or 70-200 F/4L IS

[AlexB]

Hi guys

I'm trying to decide on a telezoom that I will be using for landscape photography.

I shoot on a tripod whenever possible, and mostly stopped down to the lens' optimal aperture. The lens will be with me in my backpack whenever I go out to photograph, so size and weight is also of concern. It will be used in foul weather so it must have weather sealing.

The lens will for now be used on a 5D Mark III and a 6D, but when Canon release their high resolution body I will most likely jump on that wagon.

Most important factors:
- Image quality, especially stopped down
- Resolution (for when I upgrade to the high resolution body that is rumored, but not sure if this really should be a concern)
- Weight and portability
- Weather sealing

Less important:
- Fast aperture
- Super quick auto focus
- Image stabilization (will be used on tripod in most cases)

So far I'm considering the 70-300 F/4-5.6L IS USM, 70-200 F/4L USM and 70-200 F/4L IS USM.

I don't have any first hand experience with either one of these, so I really don't know how they compare in terms of image quality, which is my main concern. The extra reach of the 70-300 is very tempting and the maximum aperture does not worry me. However if the 70-200 F/4L's provide better image quality then I would rather go for one of those.

So what do you guys think, pro's, con's for either one? Any other lens I maybe should consider?

Any input is greatly appreciated.

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

I can only say about the 70-200f4is lens

I do like the 70-200 its weather sealed not too bad on weight and the 4 stops of Image stabilization is nice no tripod collar extra cost but the 70-200 f4l is in the same boat no tripod collar no weather seals. not Shure about the 70-300 never seen one but even with a crop camera you get fantastic landscapes. extremely sharp lens best over all

 

[sunnyVan]

Hi guys

I'm trying to decide on a telezoom that I will be using for landscape photography.

I shoot on a tripod whenever possible, and mostly stopped down to the lens' optimal aperture. The lens will be with me in my backpack whenever I go out to photograph, so size and weight is also of concern. It will be used in foul weather so it must have weather sealing.

The lens will for now be used on a 5D Mark III and a 6D, but when Canon release their high resolution body I will most likely jump on that wagon.

Most important factors:
- Image quality, especially stopped down
- Resolution (for when I upgrade to the high resolution body that is rumored, but not sure if this really should be a concern)
- Weight and portability
- Weather sealing

Less important:
- Fast aperture
- Super quick auto focus
- Image stabilization (will be used on tripod in most cases)

So far I'm considering the 70-300 F/4-5.6L IS USM, 70-200 F/4L USM and 70-200 F/4L IS USM.

I don't have any first hand experience with either one of these, so I really don't know how they compare in terms of image quality, which is my main concern. The extra reach of the 70-300 is very tempting and the maximum aperture does not worry me. However if the 70-200 F/4L's provide better image quality then I would rather go for one of those.

So what do you guys think, pro's, con's for either one? Any other lens I maybe should consider?

Any input is greatly appreciated.

Been using 70-200f4 IS for several years. The weight is just right for my 6d. Great color and sharpness. Like you I typically stop down but I won't hesitate to shoot at f4. while it's a great outdoor lens, it's far less useful indoor, hence not great for events. I fill that gap with 135prime.

Heard a lot of good things about 70-300. But I personally prefer a lens that doesn't extend.

 

[Random Orbits]

The IQ differences are not big enough to be a prime differentiator between the three lenses, so you're looking at cost, focal length range, weight and constant maximum aperture. I have the 70-300L and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, and for outdoor travel, the 70-300L is a good choice. It is about 0.5 lb heavier (about the weight of 1.4x III) than the the 70-200 lenses you're considering, but it goes to 300mm. What you get with the 70-300L is very good IQ in a compact size that handles well. It's fatter but shorter than the 70-200 lenses, which may make it easier to pack depending on what type of bag you're using (vertical storage vs. horizontal). So, if you intend to use the 200-300mm range much, then the 70-300L makes more sense than the 70-200 f/4 + 1.4x. The 70-300L will weigh about the same, handle easier (more compact at shorter FLs), be easier to pack, and would not require fiddling with extenders.

 

[candyman]

The IQ differences are not big enough to be a prime differentiator between the three lenses, so you're looking at cost, focal length range, weight and constant maximum aperture. I have the 70-300L and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, and for outdoor travel, the 70-300L is a good choice. It is about 0.5 lb heavier (about the weight of 1.4x III) than the the 70-200 lenses you're considering, but it goes to 300mm. What you get with the 70-300L is very good IQ in a compact size that handles well. It's fatter but shorter than the 70-200 lenses, which may make it easier to pack depending on what type of bag you're using (vertical storage vs. horizontal). So, if you intend to use the 200-300mm range much, then the 70-300L makes more sense than the 70-200 f/4 + 1.4x. The 70-300L will weigh about the same, handle easier (more compact at shorter FLs), be easier to pack, and would not require fiddling with extenders.

+1
the 70-300L is with me when shooting landscapes (mounted on a 5D MKIII). The 16-35 f/4 IS on my 6D

 

[fragilesi]

The 70-300 is an excellent lens.

To answer the earlier point it does not come with a tripod collar. Something I was happy about but will add to your cost equation similar to the other lenses.

 

[Eagle Eye]

I started with the 70-200 f/4L and a 1.4x II extender to get close to 300mm for landscape. I loved the weight of it and image quality was top notch. Ultimately, I wanted IS and made the short hop up to the 70-200mm f/4L IS. Only slightly heavier, but otherwise completely comparable to the non-IS version. This summer I made the jump to the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS. I decided to jump because I wasn't liking my shots with the extender and attaching it was cumbersome. I wanted to just have the reach there. I spent a little time on the Digital Picture website comparing image quality at the different f-stops between the 70-200 and the 70-300. Ultimately, it looked to me like the 70-300 was a little softer wider open and little sharper stopped down, certainly so at 300mm compared to 70-200 with the 1.4x II or III. LenScore numbers support this as well, for whatever that's worth. I decided image quality between the two was a wash and that the extra weight of the 70-300 compared to the 70-200 with extender was worth the convenience. I haven't shot with the 70-200 f/4L IS since I made the switch, though I can't quite bring myself to unload it. One thing to consider: 70-300 needs a UV filter on the front to complete the weather seal. I'm pretty sure this is not the case with the 70-200s. Factor that into price. With a high quality UV filter, image quality remains a wash, in my opinion. Also, neither lens comes with a tripod collar. Somewhat optional with a 70-200; absolutely necessary with an extender or the 70-300. Factor that in as well. If you need the reach of 300mm for landscapes (and it's a great focal length for landscapes), I think the 70-300 is worth the ounces over the 70-200 and extender.

 

[AlexB]

Thanks everyone for your replies.

First, I think I will eliminate the 70-200 F/4L USM from my list since it has no weather sealing. I also suspect the image quality is not on par with the IS version (please correct me if I'm wrong).

So, then it's the 70-200 F/4L IS USM and the 70-300 F/4-5.6L IS USM left to choose from. Reading the comments it seems the difference in image quality is so minor that I shouldn't worry about that, something which makes this decision a whole lot harder for me (I would just pick whichever has the better image quality).

70-300 advantages:
Longer reach
Slightly more compact

70-200 advantages:
Lighter
Less expensive
Constant aperture (not very important)
Does not extend (not very important)

All the time I've been leaning slightly towards the 70-300L, but I'm not sure exactly why. The extra reach and slight more compactness (for carrying the lens) are great pro's, but then again the 70-200 is a bit lighter and less expensive.

One of my concerns in regards to the 70-300 is if it's prone to zoom creeping, especially if the lens is tilted slightly up or down.

Secondly, I'm also thinking that if I get the 70-300L I need to purchase the optional tripod mount ring ($165) and a RRS plate ($55) for my tripod, but with the 70-200 I may get away without it. If that's the case then it puts the 70-300 at about $370 more total.

Regarding the extra reach, I've shot using a 70-200 F/2.8 on my 5D III several times, but never with anything at 300mm. I don't really know how much of a practical difference there is between 200 & 300mm and if it should be a major concern in regards to landscape photography.

Again, thank you all for your input and advice.

 

[Eagle Eye]

So there is zero zoom creep on the 70-300. It is absolutely rock solid. They put a lock on it to hold it at 70mm - not necessary. I've had it pointed straight down on an extension tube with a UV filter, step up ring, 77mm Lee adaptor, Lee holder, 3.0 ND filter, and 105mm polarizer all mounted with no zoom creep. It's not going anywhere. As for the tripod collar, I had one on my 70-200 and have one now on my 70-300. I think it's necessary for both. You can get away without it on the 70-200 on most of your shots in windless weather; you'll need it every time at 300mm.

I think it really comes down to whether you'll use 300mm. Before I had the 70-300, I really only shot up to 200mm, throwing the extender on a handful of times. I went to the 70-300 after reading some articles online about using 300mm in landscape work. I wouldn't go back. Some of my best shots from the last six months were at 300mm on the 70-300.

 

[Loswr]

Agree that the IQ difference between the 70-300L and 70-200/4L IS isn't a deciding factor. I went with the 70-300L as my travel telezoom. My main reasons were the extra focal length and the more compact size. Personally, I'm less concerned about the weight and cost. The shorter (retracted) length means the 70-300L fits 'vertically' in most camera bags, whereas the 70-200/4L IS must go 'horizontal' and thus takes up space that can be occupied by two physically shorter lenses.

No zoom creep at all on my 70-300L. There's a zoom lock, it's useful to prevent the lens from extending when I grab by one end to pull it out of a bag, but that's it.

If you get the 70-300L, I'd try it without the collar first. IMO, it's right on the edge of benefiting from a collar. With the Canon tripod collar and the appropriate RRS plate, my 1D X + 70-300L can't be balanced – it's back-heavy even with lens extended and the plate slid as far forward in an RRS clamp as the safety stop in the plate allows. I am able to balance it by loosening the plate and sliding it back (not ideal for regular use, as it defeats the anti-twist). I suspect a non-gripped body would balance properly, but a rosust ballhead should do just fine without the collar.

The main utility of the collar for me is as a resting spot under the lens for support. Normal grip is left hand under the body which puts my fingertips at the zoom ring of most of my zooms (24-70 II, 70-200 II, etc.). The reverse position of the rings on the 70-300L means my habitual grip puts my fingers at the focus ring; the collar means my fingertips are at the zoom ring where I usually want them.

 

[awinphoto]

I've played extensively with all 3 lenses... i shot a few airshows with the 70-300... it's a great lens, love that it goes to 300 and is a lot sharper than than the non-L counterparts. The things i didn't really like was that it extended... I've had issues with lenses that extended... one in particular locked up while extended (my 24-105) and i had to send it to canon to be fixed... a fluke accident, but a $400 fluke nevertheless. It also is appreciably heavier than either than 70-200 F4's. I owned the 70-200 F4... nice good lens... I recently had the opportunity to upgrade to a new 70-200F4 IS for under $1000 at an authorized store, so we took it and sold the non IS version. the IS version is a hair sharper... IQ i would say both the IS versions are splitting hair. I want to give the edge to the F4, but it's really close, plus constant aperture... Big plus. IMHO

 

[AlexB]

Thanks everybody, you've been of great help.

I'm now pretty much set on going with the 70-300L. I decided that the extra reach is worth it, and I prefer a more compact lens over a slightly lighter one for carrying around in my backpack. Will try it without the collar first and see how it balances on my tripod.

Someone mentioned that they don't like this lens because it extends and have a variable aperture. I can understand that, but for my application and use I don't think it will be an issue.

Thanks again
- Alex